Board index ‹ Jesus

[J Lord]

> Jesus taught orally. He could accomplish more that way in the short time he had.

I don't think this could possibly be true if Jesus was God. He obviously didn't spend his entire time on earth preaching. It is believed he didn't start his ministry until well into his adulthood. So even if he did nothing but preach 24/7 after he started his ministry, he had years before this point to write down his teachings. The fact he didn't do this demonstrates that he didn't want his message to be preserved as accurately as possible. He instead wanted anonymous writings decades later to record his teachings and transmit them in a way that has caused errors and fabrication to enter into the text. This would be insane if God wanted his message to be as clear and accurate and as believable as possible. So we can reasonably conclude that if Jesus was God, then God wanted to obscure his message for some reason.

[jimwalton]

Let's examine your claims.

> He obviously didn't spend his entire time on earth preaching.

Correct. The Gospels record he spent some time healing, some time praying, and even some times withdrawing to a quiet place, among other things.

> It is believed he didn't start his ministry until well into his adulthood.

Also true. Luke's research bears out that he was "about 30 years old when he began his ministry" (Lk. 3.23). This was the age when the Levites began their service (Num. 4.47), and Jewish custom required men to be 30 before undertaking active public teaching. Jesus started as soon as the culture would allow. Had he started before this, response may have been quite a bit more pronounced negative. No one would give any regard to a public teacher in their 20s apparently.

> he had years before this point to write down his teachings

True. I guess it's both possible and reasonable, but he didn't do it. Touche.

> The fact he didn't do this demonstrates that he didn't want his message to be preserved as accurately as possible.

Whoa. Blatant unfounded opinion. It doesn't demonstrate that at all. There are many possibilities here as to why he did not. You have no basis for claiming this.

> He instead wanted anonymous writings decades later to record his teachings and transmit them in a way that has caused errors and fabrication to enter into the text.

Whoa again. "He wanted..."? Evidence that this was his intent and desire?

> This would be insane if God wanted his message to be as clear and accurate and as believable as possible.

Disagree. The written reports of eyewitnesses are common in our journalistic world of the 21st century. We believe journalists can write a message about someone else, or some other event (whether as eyewitnesses or as researchers) that is clear, accurate, and believable. There is no legitimate reason to assume the "journalists" of the first century were incapable of that.

> So we can reasonably conclude that if Jesus was God, then God wanted to obscure his message for some reason.

This is not a reasonable conclusion at all, because the elements that led up to it are not only questionable, but unfounded.

[J Lord]

> There are many possibilities here as to why he did not. You have no basis for claiming this.

I'm not sure what reasons you are referring to, but we agree that he could have written down his message to humanity if he wanted to, but he never did. So this means he didn't want to write down his message himself. I think it is reasonable to conclude that if you want your message transmitted as accurately as possible, you would be better off writing it down as opposed to writing nothing and hoping others record it accurately. Therefore what he wanted to happen was not the most accurate preservation of his message.

> There is no legitimate reason to assume the "journalists" of the first century were incapable of that.

But there is no legitimate reason to believe that any eye witness "journalists" recorded Jesus' message, and there are good reasons to believe that the authors of the gospels we have were not eye witnesses and did not have access to eye witness evidence.

> "He wanted..."? Evidence that this was his intent and desire?

If he was God then whatever happened must have been what he wanted to have happen, since he controls everything and has unlimited power and knowledge.

[jimwalton]

Agreed: "he could have written down his message to humanity if he wanted to, but he never did"

Agreed: "he didn't want to write down his message himself"

> I think it is reasonable to conclude that if you want your message transmitted as accurately as possible, you would be better off writing it down as opposed to writing nothing and hoping others record it accurately."

Not necessarily. If you want others to give different perspectives of your life, you let them do it. Autobiography is not always the most desired course.

> Therefore what he wanted to happen was not the most accurate preservation of his message.

Not the only conclusion. Perhaps he wanted various approaches. Let's say Gen. Douglas MacArthur writes an autobiography about his life. Good for him. Now we know what he thought. But then let's say William Manchester writes a biography of MacArthur emphasizing his tenacious strategy in war. We see a different side of MacArthur than the general wrote about himself. Then we read a biography by Geoff & Janet Benge emphasizing his heroism, something that probably didn't come out in MacArthur's autobiography. This is not a problem, but a strength.

Possibly what Jesus wanted to come out was not, as you prejudicially claim, "not the most accurate preservation of his message," but instead the varied perspectives of legitimate writers.

> But there is no legitimate reason to believe that any eye witness "journalists" recorded Jesus' message

The Gospel of John has more eyewitness accounts than the other three Gospels combined:
- Times of day (1.39; 4.6, etc.)
- A link with one of the feasts (2.13, 23, etc.)
- Place names are brought in naturally and for no apparent reason other than narrative events
- The call of the disciples (1.35-51)
- The episode of the foot-washing (13.1-20)
- Information about persons not mentioned elsewhere: Nicodemus, Malchus, Annas
- Claims to eyewitness testimony (1.14, 19.35)

...to name a few. It gives plenty of legitimate reason supporting the position that John the disciple was the author of the Gospel of John (a position, by the way, unanimously advocated in the early centuries. Unanimously—by people far closer to the events than we are.)

> If he was God then whatever happened must have been what he wanted to have happen, since he controls everything and has unlimited power and knowledge.

This is not a legitimate Christian theological position. God does not control everything in the sense of determinism where humans are mere robots in a unbreakable plan. It's just a stereotype, a caricature, and inaccurate.

[Cool Hand Luke]

Jesus interacted with large segments of the population? How about Asia and the rest of the world?

There is nothing wrong with an interpretation for news. But, for the thing that decides humanity's eternity, we need a little more confirmation. Ever played the telephone game?

[jimwalton]

Sure I've played the telephone game. It has no relation to the writing of the Gospels. Luke's preface (Lk. 1.1-4) proves that beyond the shadow of a doubt. John's Gospel is nothing like the telephone game, but an ordered account with an agenda (Jn. 20.31). Matthew's Gospel is written in the form of historiography, not rumor:

- Mt. 1.1: "A record of the genealogy of Jesus..."
- Mt. 1.18: "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about..."
- Mt. 2.1: "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod..."

> Jesus interacted with large segments of the population? How about Asia and the rest of the world?

Probably those also. He was in a location in the world that was the crossroads of civilizations. Because of the available of fresh water in the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River, Palestine was where travelers from Asia, Europe, and Africa passed. Acts 2 records some of these people groups (Acts 2.8-12). It would have been the same during the years of Jesus. Sepphoris, a mere 4 miles from Nazareth, a very culturally diverse city. People from Europe, Asia, and Africa all had the possibility of being exposed to the teachings of Jesus.

[Jimi]

The examples you give for Matthew's historiography are all flatly contradicted in Luke, who is the other example you give. At most we can believe one of them, though we could instead believe neither - what reason do we have to believe either?

[jimwalton]

Matthew and Luke agree perfectly on how the birth of Jesus came about, or on Jesus being born in Bethlehem in Judea during the time of king Herod. No "flat contradiction". There is a discrepancy between the genealogies that has yet to be resolved, though there is reason to think their records have a logical explanation. The two are identical from Abraham to David, converge again at Zerubbabel, and again at Jesus. Various explanations have been offered, but until more information is unearthed, we still don't know the explanation for the divergence. There are a lot of things historians don't know. The ground has only preserved so much for us, and much of it hasn't been dug up yet. Time will tell if a resolution comes clear or not.

There are plenty of other reasons to believe in the reliability of the accounts. For instance, I did a verse-by-verse study of the Gospel of Luke, investigating every place, person, and cultural and religious reference mentioned. Some of what Luke says we have no extra biblical corroboration on, but of the things we do have corroboration on, his accuracy percentage is over 98%. He is dead on target from everything else we know. As a matter of fact, the only debated things are the census by Augustus and the person of Quirinius, which are not disproved, just highly debated. That's why you should believe it: because it has been proved to be very highly accurate.

[Jimi]

Modern scholars are quite confident that the author of the Gospel of John wasn't the disciple John, regardless of what the early Church leaders decided in the centuries following Jesus' death.

And your quoted passage (John 18:15) mentions neither James nor John (just an unnamed disciple known to the high priest - we don't know why so can't extrapolate anything from this).

So I think your case that multiple disciples were literate is quite poor.

[jimwalton]

You're right that some modern scholars take a dim view of biblical authorship, but it depends to which modern scholars you are referring. There's a big debate about it, but you're remiss to speak as if the issue has been settled by some scholarly skeptics.

And you so quickly disregard the weight of early scholarship that was far closer to the people and facts at hand than we are. It's like disregarding the soldiers' accounts of the Civil War in favor of 21st century scholarly accounts, because "our scholars know better than the people who were there." That's just not responsible scholarship or respectful historiography. Direct sources and sources close to the events in time and geography always carry weight.

As far as John 18.15, the text of John 21.24 would endorse the idea that the man of 18.15 was John himself. In favor of the idea is that it was even mentioned, let alone known. It doesn't figure into the plot at all, which at this point in the story is about Peter's denial. Also in favor of the idea is how so much is known about what happened in the trial—because John may have been a witness. This "other disciple" is in other texts associated with Peter and identified as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (13.23-26; 20.2-10; 21.7, 20-23). John also must have followed Jesus during the events of his death because he appears at the foot of the cross (19.25-27). So there's repeated evidence that this other individual is John.

The evidence against it being John? Well, the burden is on you for that. Give me what ya got.

So I've given you several points of evidence that several of the disciples may have been literate. What evidence do you have that shores up your perspective? You haven't given me anything yet.